Released Complaint 2016

7/26/2019 Released Complaint 2016

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/released-complaint-2016 1/22

3/18/16

From: Baron Crespo, Psy.D.

828 Security Dr. F205Fond du Lac, WI 54935

305-205-7546

[email protected]

To: Department of Safety and Professional Services

1400 E Washington Ave

PO Box 8935Madison, WI 53708-8935

INTRODUCTION

1.

This is a formal complaint, pursuant to the Sherman and Clayton Acts in Title 15 of the

United States Code and the “Trust and Monopolies” Chapter 133 of Wisconsin Statutes for

Respondents’ deliberate, illegal, and criminal antitrust collusion for the past 30 years, without

authorization or active supervision from the State of Wisconsin.

2. Alleged violations were conducted by the Wisconsin Psychology Examining Board, the

Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services, the Association of State and Provincial

Psychology Boards (ASPPB), and in their individual capacity as market competitors, and while

acting on behalf of the ASPPB, while in public office in Wisconsin, Dr. David A. Schroeder, Dr.

Marcus P. Desmonde, Dr. Rebecca C. Anderson, Dr. Don Chowder, Dr. Barbara Van Horne, and Dr.

Asher R. Pacht.

3. The issue initially involved Respondents refusal to issue the Petitioner a psychologist

license on unlawful, prohibitive, and discriminatory grounds even when the Petitioner (and other

prospective competitors), fulfilled all requirements set by law in the State of Wisconsin, thus

deprived Petitioner of its freedom of trade, business, and profession, which prompted Petitioner’s

public records investigation on its unlawful regulatory scheme.

4. Another core issue involved in the complaint is that Respondents, as public board

members, and a State’s psychologist license granting authority, can concurrently evaluate new



applicants and accept, deny, and delay psychologist license applications to competitors, including

Petitioner’s, while acting or having acted on behalf of a private corporation’s interest, the ASPPB,

and whether this amounts to violation of the US Antitrust laws and regulations.

PARTIES

Petitioner

5. Petitioner, Baron Crespo, Psy.D., a Wisconsin Licensed Professional Counselor #5546-

125, with about 5,880 hours of psychologist-supervised experiences, a single-member owner of

Advanced Life Innovations, PLLC, a Florida Professional Limited Liability Company, and registered

as a Foreign Limited Liability Company in Wisconsin, with its official address at 828 Security Drive

F205, Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin 54935.

Respondents

Psychology Examining Board

6.

Respondent, Psychology Examining Board (the “Board” or “Respondents”), a quasi-

public and quasi-private agency created under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, responsible for

“exercising their powers, duties and functions prescribed by law with regard to rule making,

credentialing independently and regulation” and “ensuring the safe and competent practice of

licensed psychologists in Wisconsin.” Its’ official address at 1400 E. Washington Ave Room 112,

Madison, WI 53703 (Mailing: P.O. 8935 Madison, WI 53708-8935).

Department of Safety and Professional Services

7. Respondent, Department of Safety and Professional Services (the “DSPS” or

“Respondents”), a public agency created under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, responsible for

the “safe and competent practice of licensed professionals, administer services to the state

occupational regulatory authorities responsible for regulation of occupations and policy assistance in

evaluation and establishing new professional licensing programs, creating routine procedures for



legal proceedings, and adjusting policies in response to public needs in Wisconsin.” Its official

address at 1400 E. Washington Ave Room 112, Madison, WI 53703 (Mailing: P.O. 8935 Madison,

WI 53708-8935).

The Association Of State And Provincial Psychology Boards

8. The Association of State And Provincial Psychology Boards (the “ASPPB” or

“Respondents”) an Alabama non-profit organization, registered as a foreign non-profit corporation

in the State of Georgia to “facilitate communication among board members.” Its official address at

215 Market Rd., Fayette, Tyrone, GA, 30290 (Mailing:

Registered Agent Mark Russell, P.O. BOX

3079, Peachtree City, GA, 30269).

Individual Respondents

9. Respondents Dr. Daniel A. Schroeder, Dr. Marcus P. Desmonde, Dr. Rebecca Anderson,

Dr. David W. Thompson, Dr. Don Chowder, Dr. Barbara Van Horne, and Dr. Asher R. Pacht are

accused in their official capacity while members of the Wisconsin Psychology Examining Board,

and individual capacity as market competitors, and while acting on behalf of the Association of State

and Provincial Psychology Boards’ interests.

10. At all times relevant to this complaint, all the Respondents acted under color of State law.

FACTS

11. In Wisconsin, every person who wishes to practice as a psychologist after his doctorate

degree is required to obtain a psychologist license from the Board. The Board has set a certain

criteria for issuing a psychologist license on its Administrative Code, PSY-2 (“Requirements for

Examination and Licensure of Psychologists”), that is currently inconsistent with Wisconsin’s

Statute, Chapter 455 (Psychology Examining Board), and requires an applicant to have a set number

of pre- and post-doctoral degree hours to match, however, the particular requirements set by the

ASPPB.



12. On February 2, 2016, the Board received Petitioner’s application (bearing application

number 561319) for a Wisconsin of psychologist license, along with documented psychologist-

supervised experiences.

13.

On February 10, 2016, the DSPS and the Board received Petitioner’s detailed report

pointing out its discrepant and over-extending psychologist licensing requirements noted between the

Wisconsin Chapter 455 and the Administrative Code, the Board’s need for an emergency rule

change, a proposed draft to correct its rules, and Petitioner’s concerns of antitrust violations (A copy

of this letter is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1).

14. On or about February 12, 2016, DSPS and the Board failed to make any decision on the

Petitioner’s application and instead demanded more hours of experience, and commented on

Petitioner’s DSPS Application Status Query online: “Received verification of pre-doctoral degree

hours. Only 1,500 of these hours can be used making your total amount of submitted hours: 2,380” .

15. On February 24, 2016, the Board failed to issue a psychologist license to the Petitioner

even when he had complied with all licensing requirements, cleared all examinations, and paid all

applicable fees.

16. On March 1, 2016, to the shock of Petitioner, the DSPS and the Board, again demanded

more hours of experience, delayed Petitioner’s application, and commented on Petitioner’s DSPS

Application Status Query online: “Per statute, pre-doctoral hours are not required. 1,500 post

doctoral hours required. Currently, your documentation indicates 880 hours of post-doc experience.

Please disregard previous comment regarding pre-doctoral hours.”

17. On March 2, 2016, the DSPS and the Board received another petition from Petitioner for

its application determination, which was supported with substantiated evidence of 5,880 hours of

psychologist-supervised experiences by the Petitioner. On the same date, the two Respondents

received Petitioner’s follow-up email correcting their misleading citation of Wisconsin Chapter 455

alleged in paragraph 16 (A copy of this letter is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 2.)



18. By March 18, 2016, after being informed of the violations through written petitions, the

DSPS and the Board failed to respond, or deliberately ignored the Petitioner for more than 30 days,

creating a rebuttable presumption that their response was not timely and deeming Petitioner’s

petition’s denied.

19. The DSPS failed to properly administer, enforce, and supervise the Board, relating to its

unlawful, prohibitive, and discriminatory psychologist licensing rules, deliberately promulgated rules

inconsistent with the law, failed to remedy reported wrongs with its available means, and mislead the

public, including Petitioner, with erroneous information inconsistent with state law.

ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS (All Respondents)

20. The ASPPB, a private non-profit corporation, promoted and furthered the very same

occupation regulated by the Board, by selling centralized psychologist applications to psychologist

licensing boards in the U.S., its territories, and Canada, and sells certifications to psychologists in

exchange of increased psychologist license mobility across jurisdictions.

21. From about 1984 to 1991, Dr. Asher R. Pacht, concurrently served as public official of

the Wisconsin Board, including as Board Chairperson, while functioning as an official of the ASPPB

and its licensing task forces from 1988 to 1994, including its presidency (1992 to 1993). He “ drafted

the first ASPPB Supervision Guidelines and Chaired the Committee on Education and Training for

Credentialing in the years of development of model language for statutes, rules, regulations and

passing points.”

22.

On October 1, 1991, while inconsistent with state law, the Board inserted Chapters PSY-1

to PSY-5 into to the Wisconsin Administrative Code (Administrative Register No. 429), to

particularly model the supervision requirements set by the ASPPB. Since that time, the Board

deliberately ignored psychologists’ licensing requirements set by the Wisconsin Chapter 455

(Psychology Examining Board), yet demanded prospective psychologists (competitors) to complete



3,000 hours of experience (specifically 1,500 pre-doctoral hours and 1,500 hours post-doctoral), to

meet requirements set by the ASPPB.

23. From about March 1994 to July 1, 2002, Dr. Barbara Van Horne, concurrently served as

public official of the Wisconsin Board, including as Board Chairperson, while functioning as an

official of the ASPPB and its licensing task forces from 1999 to 2005, including its presidency (2003

to 2004).

24. From about December 2000 to October 2009, Dr. Don Crowder, concurrently served as

public official of the Wisconsin Board, including as Board Chairperson, while functioning as an

official of the ASPPB and its licensing task forces from 2001 to 2016, and was the ASPPB’s current

President at the time this complaint was filed.

25. The DSPS, the Board, and its members knew, or should have known, they were

prohibited from advocating and functioning as officials with private corporations promoting the very

same field they regulated, the required standards of ethical and professional conduct, and to avoid

conflict of interests that compromise the Wisconsin Psychology Examining Board’s integrity.

26.

Since around 2002, the Board and the ASPPB, without the State of Wisconsin’s

supervision to restrict trade, entered into a mutual written agreement that exchanged psychologist

license reciprocity to those with ASPPB certifications from any State of the U.S., its Territories, or

Canadian Provinces, yet discriminated those who met the psychologist licensing requirements set by

Wisconsin Statute, Chapter 455.

27. Since around 2006, the Board deliberately ignored the American Psychological

Association’s (APA) recommendation, given improvements in the profession, to eliminate the

postdoctoral year requirement for licensure.

28. Since around 2011, DSPS and the Board only employed four licensed psychologists,

active participants in the relevant market, and Petitioner’s and prospective psychologists’

competitors. Since that time, the Board failed to recruit the two public member vacancies.





35. The Board, through allegations in paragraphs 33 and 34, colluded to maintaining its

private interests with the ASPPB and deprived the public’s general welfare from qualified clinical

and counseling psychologists, including Petitioner, who typically have about 1 to 2 years (2,000 to

4,000 hours) of psychologist-supervised experiences at completion of their doctoral degree.

36. The Respondents failed to act in good faith by presenting their private interests with the

ASPPB as those of the State of Wisconsin, and at the expense of the public’s general welfare and

interstate commerce as evidenced by the foregoing clear and convincing allegations noted in public

records.

37. The Board, through its members, acted without privilege or justification, and deliberately

engaged in anticompetitive conduct without clearly articulate and affirmatively expressed by state

law.

38. The Board lacked sufficient and substantive evaluation, scrutiny, review mechanisms, and

supervision for its procedural rule-making process (if any) to prevent the foregoing alleged scheme.

COUNT 1: ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE 15 U.S. CODE § 1

39. Petitioner incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the allegations in

paragraphs 1 through 38.

40. At all times relevant to this complaint, the Wisconsin Psychology Examining Board and

the ASPPB, through its dually compromised members (individual Respondents), intentionally

restrained prospective competitors from entering the relevant market by presenting their private and

pecuniary interests as those of the State of Wisconsin, and at the expense of the public’s general

welfare and interstate commerce.

41. Through the Respondents violations, Respondents caused Petitioner, and prospective

competitors, significant economic and financial losses, including but limited to illegal restraint of

trade, the loss in the ability of competing in current and future relevant markets, the loss in the ability

to treat patients as a licensed psychologist, the loss in the ability to do business with third-party



organizations and insurance companies across the U.S., and the loss in the ability to compete for

federal and state government contracts with Respondents in the relevant markets.

COUNT 2: MONOPOLIZING A TRADE 15 U.S. CODE § 2

42.

Petitioner incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the allegations in


43. Respondents deliberately engaged in a horizontal agreement between the Wisconsin

Psychology Examining Board and the ASPPB, through its dually compromised members (individual

Respondents), and exercised market and monopoly power over the Petitioner and prospective

competitors, to substantially restraint free competition and creating a monopoly in the relevant

markets.

44. Through the Respondents monopoly, Respondents caused Petitioner, prospective

competitors, and consumers, reduced the overall quality of care that customers receive, reduced the

quantity of services availability, reduced the supply of services, reduced consumer’s choices,

restricted innovation, potentially kept high prices, and delayed future competition for services in the

relevant markets. Without prospective competition, Respondents, as incumbent psychologists, had

and will continue to follow a predictable and complacent course of commerce with minimal

competitive interruption.

COUNT 3: DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE, SERVICES, OR FACILITIES 15 U.S. CODE

§ 13



46. The Board directly discriminated against Petitioner and prospective competitors, who

have met the State of Wisconsin licensing requirements, by not issuing a psychologist license, but

favored those with ASPPB certifications from any State of the U.S., Territory, or Canadian

Provinces by granting them reciprocity.



47. Through the Respondents violations, Respondents caused Petitioner and prospective

competitors, foreclosure and exclusion from competing with psychologists in the relevant market.

Respondents’ violations were discriminatory and prejudicial against the interests of the Petitioner

and prospective competitors in the same field.

COUNT 4: ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN TERRITORIES 15 U.S. CODE § 3



CAUSES FOR ACTION

49. By failing to respond within the 30-day period, thus deeming Petitioner’s petitions

denied, the DSPS and the Board violated Wi.Statt.227.53, Wi.Statt.227.49.(5), Wi.Psy.5.24, and

Wi.Statt.101.02(6).

50. By willingly engaging in business with a private corporation that promotes the

psychologist profession, an occupation regulated by the Board, the Board and individual

Respondents violated Wi.Statt.15.08(1).

51. By failing to properly administer, enforce and supervise the Board, relating to its

unlawful, prohibitive, and discriminatory psychologist licensing rules, promulgating rules

inconsistent with the law, failing to remedy reported wrongs with its available means, and

misleading the public, including Petitioner, with erroneous information inconsistent with state law,

DSPS violated Wi.Statt.102.02.15(b).

52. By failing to issue a psychologist license to the Petitioner, even when he had complied

with all licensing requirements, cleared all examinations, and paid all applicable fees, the DSPS and

the Board violated Wi.Statt.455.04(1).

53. By failing to issue a psychologist license, even after being presented with clear and

substantiated evidence, the DSPS and the Board violated Wi.Statt.440.035(1).



54. By failing to promulgate rules consistent with the law, and deliberately maintaining those

inconsistent with the law, the DSPS, the Board, and individual Respondents violated

Wi.Statt.227.10(2) to (2m).

55.

By failing to foster the standards of education and training pertaining to the psychologist

profession, and in relation to Wisconsin’s government and to the general welfare, the Board violated

Wi.Statt.15.085(6).

56. By deliberately ignoring the American Psychological Association’s (APA)

recommendation, given improvements in the profession, to eliminate the postdoctoral year

requirement for licensure, the Board violated Wi.Statt.455.08.

57. By failing to identify existing rules hindering job creation and small business growth, the

DSPS and the Board violated Wisconsin 2012 Executive Order 61.

58. By intentionally misreporting the required economic impact analyses that goes into the

rule-making process, and denying any impact to small businesses, DSPS, the Board, and individual

Respondents violated Wi.Statt.227.137.

59.

By intentionally restraining the Petitioner and prospective competitors, from entering the

relevant market, and presenting private and pecuniary interests as those of the State of Wisconsin,

and at the expense of interstate commerce and the public’s general welfare, all Respondents violated

Wi.Statt.133.03(1) and Section 1 of Title 15 of the U.S. Code.

60. By deliberately engaging in a horizontal agreement creating a monopoly to restrict free

competition and exercising market and monopoly power over the relevant markets, all Respondents

violated Wi.Statt.133.03(2) and Section 2 of Title 15 of the U.S. Code.

61. By directly discriminating against Petitioner and prospective competitors, who have met

the State of Wisconsin law requirements, by not issuing and/or delaying issuing a psychologist

license, but favored those with ASPPB certifications from any State of the U.S., Territory, or

Canadian Provinces, all Respondents violated Wi.Statt.133.04, Wi.Statt.133.05, and Sections 3 and

13 of Title 15 of the U.S. Code.



62. By engaging in anticompetitive conduct without clearly articulate and affirmatively

expressed by state law, without sufficient and realistic review mechanisms and supervision to

prevent the foregoing alleged collusion, DSPS, the Board, and individual Respondents violated

Sections 1 of Title 15 of the U.S. Code.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests judgment against Respondents for the following relief:

a)

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 4, 15 &16, injunctive relief in way of an order directing the U.S.

Department of Justice to investigate criminal antitrust conduct on dual ASPPB and

Psychology Licensing Boards officials, who have engaged in the rule-making process in

the United States, its Territories, and the District of Columbia.

b) Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16 and Wi.Statt.227.40(4)(a), a judgment declaring that current

Administrative Codes PSY-2 “Requirements for Examination and Licensure of

Psychologists” be set aside and deemed invalid in its entirety as constituting an unlawful

restraint of interstate trade and commerce.

c) Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16, injunctive relief in way of an order directing the DSPS and

the Board to modify Administrative Codes PSY-2 “Requirements for Examination and

Licensure of Psychologists” to be consistent with Wisconsin Chapter 455, via Wisconsin

emergency rule-making rules Wi.Statt.227.27.

d) Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16, injunctive relief in way of an order directing the DSPS and

the Board to issue Petitioner (and qualified prospective competitors) a psychologist

license according to Wisconsin Statutes “Psychology Examining Board,” Chapter 455.

Respectfully submitted,

BARON CRESPO PSY.D.



February 8, 2016

FROM: BARON CRESPO

828 Security Drive F205Fond du Lac WI 54935

TO: STATE OF WISCONSINPSYCHOLOGY EXAMINING BOARD(“the Board”)P.O. Box 8366Madison, WI 53708-8366

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DISAGREEMENT AND EMERGENCY RULE PROPOSAL

Dear Wisconsin Psychology Examining Board,

This is a Notice of Disagreement and a proposed emergency rule change regardingPsychology Examining Board Wisconsin Administrative Code PSY-2.

While researching WI state law regarding psychologist requirements, this applicantbecame aware of a significant discrepancy between the WI Chapter 455 (PsychologyExamining Board) and the Wisconsin Administrative Code PSY-2.10 (Requirements forExamination and Licensure of Psychologists).

There is an evident need for an emergency rule change, because the aforesaid discrepancynot only over-extends the powers of the Board, but it also infringes federal antitrust lawsby allowing market incumbents (board members psychologists) to suppress competitionfrom the very market they regulate.

This applicant (consumer and competitor) attempted to send these comments regardingthis proposal to the Board’s last public hearing on 2.04.16, but was informed: “comments

were submitted past deadline.” For that reason, a copy of this pressing request will bedelivered via certified USPS mail to prevent further delays before the Board’s next

meeting on March 11th, 2016.

Lastly, I hereby protest Board’s additional requirements contrary to the Wisconsinstatutes and its objectives, and I request the Board to consider this emergency rule changeto further prevent harm to Wisconsin’s small businesses and economic development.

Page 1

Exhibit #1



FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

1. The training and experience requirements by the WI Chapter 455 law explicitlystates the Board shall issue a psychologist license to those with at least one year

of supervised experience:

455.04 c) Hold a doctoral degree in psychology from a college or universityaccredited by a regional accrediting agency approved by the state board ofeducation in the state in which the college or university is located, or have hadother academic training or specialized experience, which in the opinion of the

board is equivalent thereto. The board may require examinations to determinethe equivalence of such training and experience and may also requireexaminations for individuals holding doctoral degrees in psychology fromnon!American universities .

455.04 d) Have had at least one year of appropriate experience inpsychological work under conditions satisfactory to the examining board inaddition to satisfying par. (c). However, the examining board may not adopt

rules requiring an internship.

2. The Board’s PSY-2 Administrative Code currently requires 3,000 hourspsychologist-supervised experiences (1,500 pre-doctoral and 1,500 post-doctoral),equivalent to about two years of full-time experience.

PSY-2.09(3):

SUPERVISED EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS. (a) Conditions

of supervised experience. 1. A psychological trainee shall complete 3,000 hours

of supervised experience as a prerequisite to licensure as a psychologist...

2. The first 1,500 hours of the experience shall be under the direction of one

licensed psychologist who satisfies the requirements of pars. (b) and (c) and whoshall be responsible for the integrity and the quality of the training...

3. The second 1,500 hours of the experience shall be under the direction of alicensed psychologist who satisfies the requirements of pars. (b) and (c) and whoshall be responsible for the integrity and the quality of the training...

4. A minimum of 1,500 hours must follow completion of all the requirementsfor the doctoral degree.

3. Moreover, the Board recently proposed an updated PSY-2 Admin Code (2/03/16),

that does not take the necessary steps to correct these issues, and states:

PSY-2.10 SUPERVISED PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE: A one-yearexperience in psychological work after a doctoral degree in psychology or itsequivalent under conditions satisfactory to the examining board.

4. The aforementioned inconsistencies are prohibited, and considered overextending

of the powers of the Board, because they conflict with Wisconsin statutes:

Exhibit #1

Page 2



227.10 STATEMENTS OF POLICY AND INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW;DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED. (1) Each agency shall promulgate as arule each statement of general policy and each interpretation of a statute, whichit specifically adopts to govern its enforcement or administration of that statute.A statement of policy or an interpretation of a statute made in the decision of a

contested case, in a private letter ruling under s. 73.035 or in an agency decisionupon or disposition of a particular matter as applied to a specific set of factsdoes not render it a rule or constitute specific adoption of a rule and is notrequired to be promulgated as a rule.

(2) No agency may promulgate a rule which conflicts with state law .

(2m) No agency may implement or enforce any standard, requirement, orthreshold, including as a term or condition of any license issued by the agency,unless that standard, requirement, or threshold is explicitly required or

explicitly permitted by statute or by a rule that has been promulgated inaccordance with this subchapter, except as provided in s. 186.118 (2) (c) and (3)(b) 3. The governor, by executive order, may prescribe guidelines to ensure thatrules are promulgated in compliance with this subchapter.

5. The Board’s proposed rule PSY-2.10, which requires additional experience aftercompletion of a doctoral degree incidentally by-passes the Board’s prohibitionagainst adding an ‘internship’ requirement [455.04(1)(d)], because applicant (andprospective business competitors) will have to continually undergo additional‘retitled’ and mostly underpaid ‘post-doctoral’ internships, externships,fellowships, and or other work experiences after completion of doctorate degreesto become licensed and enter the market:

a. Today’s graduate students in clinical, counseling and school psychologytoday receive an average of 1,800-2,000 hours of supervised clinical

experience before entering, the additional internship year.

b. The final total amount (4,000 hours) is equal to or more than the totalexperience that trainees earned when the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) adopted its previous policy for minimum requirementsin 1987.

c. In 2006, the APA voted for, and affirmed the educational minimumrequirements for psychologists and the elimination of the post-doctoralrequirement.

d.

Since then, the following States have taken the necessary steps to changetheir regulations to accommodate for this improvement in the profession,by taking into account psychologist-supervised experiences, both ‘pre-doctoral’ and/or ‘post-doctoral’ to meet their license supervisionrequirements: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky,Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio (most recent), Utah, Washington State, andWyoming

Page 3

Exhibit #1



6. While the Board shall promulgate rules for its own profession [15.085(b)], theymust be consistent with Wisconsin state law [227.10 (2) and (2m), and shall adoptto advance improvement of the education and training standards of localpsychologists:

15.085(6) IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROFESSION. In addition to any other dutiesvested in it by law, each affiliated credentialing board shall foster the standards of

education or training pertaining to its own trade or profession, not only in relation of

the trade or profession to the interest of the individual or to organized businessenterprise, but also in relation to government and to the general welfare . Eachaffiliated credentialing board shall endeavor, both within and outside its own trade orprofession, to bring about a better understanding of the relationship of the particular tradeor profession to the general welfare of this state.

7. The Board is also instructed to adopt necessary rules that model APA guidelines[455.08]. While the APA (2006) voted for, and affirmed the educational minimumrequirements for psychologists and the elimination of the post-doctoral

requirement, the Board has not taken any reasonable steps to adopt these rules:

455.08 RULES AND CODE OF ETHICS. The examining board shall adopt such

rules as are necessary under this chapter and shall, by rule, establish a reasonable code of

ethics governing the professional conduct of psychologists, using as its model the"Ethical Standards of Psychologists", established by the American Psychological

Association.

8. Even though the Board’s proposed rules should model APA guidelines [455.08], areview of its published minutes from 2012 to 2015 indicated the Board has beenaware of above-mentioned issues, yet seems over reliant on another third-partyorganization: Association Of State And Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB).

9. This departure from established laws creates a conflict of interest for the Board,consumers, and competitors according to federal antitrust laws and regulations,because it significantly hinders small business development in Wisconsin, and itis inconsistent with the Governor’s 2012 Act #61.

a. Governor’s 2012 Executive Order #61 instructed agencies for theidentification and changes of existing rules hindering job creation andsmall business growth. The order called for recommended changes to rulesthat will both reduce their burden on job creators while continuing to

comply with the intent of the statutes that created. The Board stated itsmost recent proposed rules that its rules have no impact on small

businesses (2/03/16).

b. Small Business Impact: The Board’s discrepant rules directly affect thedevelopment, recruitment, and competition of prospective psychologists(businesses competitors). From 2012 to 2016 countless applicants have

Page 4

Exhibit #1



been injured by the time-consuming and inapplicable documentation,significant delays with current and proposed prerequisites (of at least ayear), and denied licensees, from those from the very same profession theyregulate which continue to hinder local job creation and small businessgrowth.

a. Wisconsin’s small businesses are being harmed because otherwisequalified psychologists right to compete in a fair market are beingrestricted from:

i. Creating more businesses as private practices, agencies, orcontractors, thus hindering small business growth.

ii. Competing for contracts with State, county and other localgovernments as independent contractors, thus obstructing faircompetition.

iii. Increasing their selection ratios when hiring candidates by Stateagencies and other local businesses, thus hindering local job

growth.

10. The Board’s overreliance on the ASPPB also creates a significant conflict ofinterest, because that entity is in the business of selling central applications toStates and Provinces and banking of documents/credentials to individuals. Assuch, it is quite convenient for the ASPPB to recommend States to require anadditional 1,500 hours of post-doctoral experience for licensing.

a. The ASPPB is business of charging each State applicant for a license

application ($200) and EPPP score transfers ($85-115) among other fees.Still, adherence to promulgated Wisconsin State law, and as recommendedby the APA, will incur no additional not costs to local competitors whodecide to keep their talents in Wisconsin.

b. While the ASPPB is convenient to business competitors who want toincrease their license mobility and take their talents to other States, theseparties can currently do so independently by documenting their supervisedexperiences, instead of doing it at the burden of the State’s economicdevelopment.

11. Antitrust Law Liability: On February 25, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmedthat state boards on which a controlling number of decision makers are activemarket participants in the occupation the board regulates are not exempt fromscrutiny or immune from liability unless the board is actively supervised by thestate. [North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission].

a. Wisconsin Board Members of the Psychology Exam Board:

Exhibit #1

Page 5



i. Are drawn from the very occupation they regulate

ii. “Independently exercise their powers, duties and functionsprescribed by law with regard to rule making, credentialing and

regulation” [440.035(1)].

iii. Have barred and delayed prospective licensees from competingin the market and offering psychological services to consumers,thus unduly suppressing pro-consumer competition.

REQUESTED RELIEF

The Board is hereby requested to:

1. Prevent small business from sustained harm by proposing an emergencyrule to modify its proposed PSY-2.10 “Supervised PsychologicalExperience,” to read from:

[“A one-year experience in psychological work after a doctoral degree inpsychology or its equivalent under conditions satisfactory to theexamining board.]

to:

[“A one-year experience in psychological work or an internship inpsychology, or its equivalent under conditions satisfactory to theexamining board.”]

a. Note Well: This modification “or an internship in psychology…”indicates the internship be another option to meet the one yearsupervised experience required by State law 455.04 (4)(d), ratherthan a specific requirement per se.

b.

This modification is consistent with long-standing guidelines fromthe American Psychological Association, which should be modeledby the Board according to State law [455.08], and improvement ofthe profession in relation to the government and to the generalwelfare [15.085(6)].

Page 6

Exhibit #1



2. Review this pressing request by the next scheduled meeting on March 11,2016. A copy of this request was also sent via certified USPS mail toallow review in a timely fashion.

3. Respond with its decision within 30 days in writing with actions or any

appeals in place for this writer to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Feel free to contact me with any questions at: [email protected]

Best,

Baron Crespo, Psy.D.

CC: Wisconsin Psychological Association- Advocacy Cabinet

Page 7

Exhibit #1


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/released-complaint-2016 20/22Scanned by CamScanner

Page 1

Exhibit #2


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/released-complaint-2016 21/22Scanned by CamScanner

Page 2

Exhibit #2



Exhibit #2

Documents

Released Complaint 2016